« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Today's Must Read
First was the war over the benchmarks. Now there's the war for whose benchmarks really mark the benches.
In May, Congress mandated that the Government Accountability Office produce an assessment of whether the U.S. and the Iraqi government are meeting eighteen indicators of political, economic and military progress in Iraq. Unlike the analysis produced by the Bush administration -- preliminarily delivered in July, and to be finalized by September 15 -- the GAO study has to give a stark yes-or-no answer for the achievement of each so-called benchmark. Sure enough, a draft of the study, leaked to The Washington Post, finds that only three of the eighteen benchmarks have been met -- while the July White House assessment said about half of them had been.
As the Post reports, the GAO report casts doubt on whether progress is being achieved in several of the areas the Bush administration has highlighted. July's White House report, for example, cited "an overall decrease in sectarian violence" in Baghdad. The GAO, by contrast, finds that "the average number of daily attacks against civilians remained about the same over the last six months; 25 in February versus 26 in July." The Iraqi security forces remain dysfunctional: the GAO cites pervasive sectarianism in the Iraqi Army units sent to Baghdad for the surge, while the White House called their performance "satisfactory."
Politically, the Iraqi government -- and politics more broadly -- is a shambles. The only indicator of political progress cited by the GAO is a measure providing protection for the rights of minorities in the legislature. There's nothing but failure on constitutional reform ("satisfactory," said the White House), oil-revenue distribution ("the current status is unsatisfactory, but it is too early to tell"), and de-Baathification (not satisfactory).
And then there's this highly significant tidbit. On Monday, President Bush gave a speech praising a recent accord among the Shiite and Kurdish political parties of Nouri al-Maliki's government -- which has no Sunnis, who, along with the Sadrists, have withdrawn from the cabinet -- pledging to play nicer with the Sunnis. (Tariq al-Hashemi's Iraqi Islamic Party, a leading Sunni political entity, signed the accord, but hasn't brought his party back into the government and the other Sunnis doubt Maliki's sincerity.) The cost-free accord for Maliki smelled a lot like an illusory political deal intended to bolster the Petraeus/Crocker assessments next month to Congress. Sure enough, the GAO finds that Bush's public statements about political progress by the Maliki government are entirely contradicted by internal studies:
An internal administration assessment this month, the GAO says, concluded that "this [Sunni] boycott ends any claim by the Shi'ite-dominated coalition to be a government of national unity." An administration official involved in Iraq policy said that he did not know what specific interagency document the GAO was citing but noted that it is an accurate reflection of the views of many officials.
Along with an independent assessment of the Iraqi security forces, led by distinguished retired Marine General Jim Jones, the GAO report will be delivered to Congress next week. Post reporters Karen DeYoung and Tom Ricks got a leaked draft, they write, from "a government official who feared that its pessimistic conclusions would be watered down in the final version -- as some officials have said happened with security judgments in this month's National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq." (Petraeus reportedly "softened" last week's NIE.)
But even if the report stands as it is in the draft, it's not hard to see what the White House response to the GAO will be. Gordon Johndroe, spokesman for the National Security Council, questioned the report's methodology: "it's not surprising the GAO would make this assessment, given the difficult congressionally mandated measurement they had to follow." In other words, it's problematic for the GAO to give an yea-or-nay assessment of conditions in Iraq. This from a president who famously said he doesn't "do nuance."
Comments (19)
Scott L wrote on August 30, 2007 9:49 AM:What do you expect. The profit line is too great to leave. The WH is going to candy coat it any and all ways to keep the gravy train rolling.
spencers mom wrote on August 30, 2007 10:05 AM:The bottom line is that bush stated months ago that "getting out of Iraq will be the problem of the next president."
Although the man lies, (and lies and lies...) I think we need to take him at his word on this one. There is no chance that he will take steps towards ending this occupation, UNLESS the Iraqi government signs the "oil revenue law" that ensures outside oil companies (read Carlisle Group) the guarantee of 75% of Iraq's oil revenuues for 30 years.
This whole "oil revenue sharing" for Iraqis is just sham! Via BushCo policies, the Iraqi people will be "allowed" to share the remaining 25% amongst themselves. What a great deal for them!
PEACE
Captain Nemo wrote on August 30, 2007 10:17 AM:The "oil revenue sharing" is the key -- to lock up American control of Iraq's oil, which, at $70 per barrel, is worth up to $21 trillion dollars. Bush wants $50B to continue the war.
The Dems will make a lot of noise and wag their fingers, but given their past track record, the odds are they will give him the money.
ARG in Chicago wrote on August 30, 2007 10:22 AM:Kudos to the GAO hero(s) brave enough to risk leaking this report. I'm sure his/her/their fears of censorship are well founded.
I think we're stuck in Iraq at least as long as Bush and/or Cheney remain in office. The only solution to this problem is impeachment.
Frankly, I'm getting tired of Iraq. It's a terrible thing, and it needs to be resolved, and it is arguably more important than anything else. BUT we're also facing serious issues with our own infrastructure, serious problems with civil liberties and the balance of power in our government, serious economic storm clouds on the horizon (and I think it's starting to sprinkle already)... The Iraq "problem" (I won't use the W-word) is a diversion from everything else that matters. Maybe that was/is one of its intended uses.
I wish someone would take the bull by the horns. I feel like a broken record, but we need to impeach. The sooner the better. Lives depend on it.
-- ARG
carolyn wrote on August 30, 2007 10:24 AM:Why why why is this oil revenue sharing "deal" not being exposed in the MSM?
jim wrote on August 30, 2007 10:29 AM:You people don't understand. If we stop the surge, gas will go to $12 a gallon, we will all be enslaved by Iranian hordes, your children will get AIDS, you will lose your job, and your penis will no longer function. They are coming to kill your children with nuclear missles strapped to their backs and with bees shooting out of their mouths. Wake up!
Go U.S. Americans!
coltergeist wrote on August 30, 2007 10:47 AM:Jim, that was funny. Nice reference to Miss SC!
If I were an Iraqi, and I'm not and don't wish to be, I would sign the best oil revenue sharing law ever (ala Richard Scary's).
Then do what the Saudi's did. Wait till the muricans leave, or enough of them, and rip it up. Nanny Nanny poo poo. Whether the U.S. has the military might is not the question. Would the U.S. populace willingly go back into Iraq to enforce a revenue sharing agreement, knowing what a mess it was the first time around?
-no relation to Ann
Xman wrote on August 30, 2007 11:02 AM:Actually, aren't the "Iraqi's" getting a bigger cut of the oil than we American's get when we give the same big oil companies, rights to our own oil? We taxpayers, who own the oil, don't get 25%.
Of course, does anyone really believe the Iraqi "people" are going to see their 25%?
Isn't the 25% just "the cut" that those who "govern" Iraq are happy to get for their part in making the deal?
In a free for all, everyone just wants their cut.
Michael Lafferty wrote on August 30, 2007 11:11 AM:Now there is news: that the nonpartisan audit Agency of Congress would draw a different conclusion than that administration about the signs of progress in the occupation of Iraq? I am shocked!
The die was cast the day that representatives of the oil industry carved up the oil fields of Iraq in the office of the Vice President. Elective conflicts are typically about the acquisition of natural resources at the point of a gun, and this one is no different.
Anonymous wrote on August 30, 2007 11:17 AM:Here is royalty % source:
"Typically, oil royalty rates are 12.5 percent, or one-eighth of the production onshore and one-sixth offshore."
Legalize wrote on August 30, 2007 11:18 AM:Malcolm Wallop, a Republican member of the Senate from 1977 to 1995, is chairman of Frontiers of Freedom Institute.
I don't know how to square this with the fact that teh surge is working!!!!! (which everyone knows). My only guess is that this GAO person is a traitor and probably a Democrat liar. This person should be tried for treason for exposing state-secrets purely out of HATE for America and The increadibly masculine, and not at all homosexual, Commander Guy.
SteveW wrote on August 30, 2007 11:28 AM:So, now what? The Dems are so spineless, this report will be blathered about and then Congressional Dems will bend over and give Bush the 50 Billion more he's asking for to keep this war going and going.
Then President Cheney will order "preemptive war" against Iran and we'll be asking China to further finance our military endeavors, all the while mounting ever-increasing massive debt.
Look folks, it's game over. The Dem elite in D.C. wants this war and have no intentions of getting us out. In fact, Levin and Hillary Clinton only helped Bush last week by blaming seemingly all that is wrong in Iraq on Maliki. This gives Bush cover to replace Maliki with our CIA man, Allawi. At that time, Bush will again address the nation claiming the real war is starting...."now"....and "our brave military just needs more time to let democracy flower in Iraq." The Dems will agree, we'll get the Iraqi's to sign over their oil rights to the U.S. and the real motive for this war will be complete.
AIPAC!
Mad Dog Rackham wrote on August 30, 2007 11:28 AM:Jim, you forgot "...and Bill Clinton will screw your wife."
moondancer wrote on August 30, 2007 11:35 AM:This is like some Monty Python skit from hell.
714Day wrote on August 30, 2007 12:00 PM:The Iraqi govt is brain dead.
WH: no its not
The surge is pointless without a functioning govt.
WH: Its fine, just needs a little fresh air.
All the facts are in plain view, we know you are lying.
WH: no we're not
You're denying benchmarks you set a few months ago.
WH: no we're not.
We already know that the upcoming report card is "cooked" to support your lies.
WH: no its not.
Wish that Python was the only snake on the block.
ARG in Chicago wrote on August 30, 2007 12:02 PM:That's not an argument, it's just contradiction.
WH: No it's not.
-- ARG
Anonymous wrote on August 30, 2007 2:07 PM:One concept which is cropping up almost daily is that the Democrats (I assume the remark is addressing our representatives in Washington) are "spineless"...
"So, now what? The Dems are so spineless, "
I do not, and have never even considered, that those guys up there, aware everyday of their elected careers that they are the most powerful group in the entire world... ever consider themselves spineless.
They are up there doing what they know best... manipulating constituents and run of the mill folks into believing they are concerned for "We the People", while they are actually dissolving and destroying the same institution that gave them this power. These guys are not afraid of the president. The president is there for 4-8 years... period! Many of them have been there through three or four different presidents.
They are actually nothing more than self centered opportunists. "I am beyond any and all scrutiny... I will do whatever I want!" They then go about acting accordingly.
"We the People" just don't seem to be able to get it through our Disneyland heads that WE are not the important people here... THEY ARE! Their normal day after day routine consists of:
1. Where do I want to eat breakfast? Who's going to buy it?
2. What do I want for lunch? Who's going to buy it?
3. Are there any new expensive dinner places in town? Who'll take me there tonight?
4. Note to self: have someone type an MS Publisher flyer to constituents. Tell them to be sure to put something in it letting the voters think I care...
5. Plan my trip to Beliz... find some meeting I can attend while I'm there... be sure it's short and meaningless. Have staff get some brochure from the meeting and type up something for the next flyer... something to show it was important... don't mention it was in Beliz
6. Call some lobbiests... tell them how important their input is to me. Also, let them know I need some more fundraisers...
7. Note to self: Try not to forget to vote on some stuff... people are beginning to think I not that concerned about the issues.
8. Hard day... go home... call Candi's Escort... ask for Mandy..
Of course, not all of our reps are like this example. some of them probably skip #4... and maybe the second paert of #5.
Rodney Lamprey, jr. wrote on August 30, 2007 4:02 PM:Bush is running his war like an Enron executive: lies upon lies until the whole mess collapses.
Pompano Pete Jr wrote on August 30, 2007 4:07 PM:The increasingly obvious implosion of our government, economy, society and infrastructure may assist progressives in removing the venal and spineless of both parties, but I have my doubts. It takes three election cycles to expose every Senator to the public, so the risk is minimal unless the effort is understood to be a long-term project. And we already see signs of weariness and cynicism among our ranks. Few have the courage or stamina to fight through 33 races every two years three times.
My preferred solution? A Second Continental Congress where the issue is: dissolving our current structure of government and replacing it with five or six regional, quasi-independent entities. At the heart of what everyone here is saying is the reality that the Founders never envisioned a country with 300 Million citizens. They had a real struggle to put together a system to unite 4 Million, and to do so, they planted the seeds of a terrible civil war.
I know my region, New England/New York/New Jersey is the richest, best educated, healthiest and most well informed part of the country. And I know it would be much more prosperous, and progressive, without the drag placed upon us by the Federal government. For every dollar we send to DC, we get 88 cents back in goods and services, and a reactionary, militaristic, parochial government to represent us. It's a lousy deal for us, no matter how you view it, and I wonder how much longer we'll put up with it.